The new US climate strategy opens up old problems in Europe

The Biden administration marked the return of the United States to international climate leadership this week with ambitious plans to do so. halve the emission of greenhouse gasess in 2030. But the movement also resurfaced some old fault lines.

The climate target placed the United States in the EU pair, which this week sealed the terms of a European law which commits the bloc to reducing emissions by at least 55% over the decade, compared to 1990 levels. The U.S. target is based on 2005 emission levels.

While encouraged in Europe, the U.S. climate resurgence masks divergent approaches between the two economic powerhouses on how to win the so-called zero-zero race.

“Americans have a strategy based on the development of new technologies,” French Environment Minister Barbara Pompili told FT this week. “It’s great to develop hydrogen, as we are doing, and capture carbon. But I think we have an additional ingredient in France and Europe. We go further because we are also looking at our ways of life. “

EU officials are also quick to point to what they see as gaps in the US strategy that relies heavily on new green technologies and private sector innovation and investment to radically reduce emissions.

“I am just optimistic. I believe in our ingenuity, “U.S. Presidential Climate Envoy John Kerry said Thursday after the first day of the U.S.-led climate summit, which drew leaders from 40 countries, including China’s Xi Jinping and the Russian Vladimir Putin, in addition to fresh climate promises from Japan, Canada and South Korea.

Kerry said he hoped the United States would surpass the 2030 target thanks to technological advances yet to be developed in areas such as green hydrogen energy, batteries, and carbon capture and storage.

“We are the country that went to the moon. We didn’t know how we would get there when President Kennedy announced the goal, but we did, “said the former secretary of state.

EU officials admit that the US can mobilize much more investment in green technologies compared to the 27-country bloc, where spending is still determined at the national level.

But US “techno-optimism” contrasts with the EU’s multidisciplinary approach that combines a mix of the bloc’s regulatory force and investment in energy innovations, as well as an advanced carbon pricing system, to stimulate the changes needed by consumers to drastically reduce emissions. .

The EU used the Trump years to establish itself as the world’s largest climate superpower. Brussels’ climate law enshrines its mandatory net emissions target in 2050, which, if achieved, would make the EU the first continent in the world to reach the milestone.

The United States has always been market-driven, not just the Biden administration. They miss a trick by not focusing on changing the economy beyond the use of technology levers

In the coming months, Brussels will establish green legislation to make the bloc “adapt to 55%” by 2030. Laws will address everything from vehicle emissions targets and building renovations to renewable energy. , as part of a European green deal is hailed as an industrial policy to revive the post-pandemic economy.

Sandrine Dixson-Declève, co-chair of the Rome Club, says the EU’s climate strategy is a “systems approach” that seeks to cover almost every sector of the economy. “The United States has always been driven by the market, not just the Biden administration. They are missing a trick by not focusing on changing the economy beyond using technological levers. she says.

U.S. policy analysts agree that the United States continues to recover climate policy, even if Biden administration officials insist that broad technological gains ensure that not too much ground is lost during the years of Trump.

“A key difference is that many European countries have passed climate legislation, and that gives them much more authority to design and implement policies that are consistent with their international commitments,” says Kelly Sims Gallagher, a senior Obama White House official. which helped negotiate the 2014 US -China Climate Agreement. “The United States lacks this comprehensive legislation, and instead has followed a narrow approach with limited authority.”

“[The Biden Administration] perhaps it is underestimating the skepticism of the international community that the US can get back on track with its domestic policy. ”

One of the most important starting points between the two powers is the European rise in the price of carbon through its emissions trading system (ETS), which is at the heart of the European decarbonisation plan.

The ETS was created in the 2000s to encourage heavy polluting industries to switch to greener energy by forcing them to buy carbon quotas to offset their emissions. The scheme of limitation and trade exchange will have to undergo a radical expansion to include new sectors such as maritime transport, vehicle manufacturers and buildings, and force new changes in the business models of European industry. As a forecast, this week investors have pushed the price of carbon to new records, exceeding € 40 per tonne.

But this market-based system has received little federal support in the United States, despite the adoption of a smaller carbon trading scheme in California and, to a lesser degree, in northeastern states such as New York. York and Maryland.

“If Americans don’t have a carbon pricing system, the only alternative is a carbon tax and that’s political suicide,” a senior EC official said.

Contrary to US claims that Europe is fixated on regulation, EU policymakers say the ETS has proven to be a successful market-based solution that has prevented over-regulation and strict rules on areas such as energy efficiency.

“We are baffled why the US is allergic to it and we don’t think they have really thought about it,” the official added.

Tensions between the EU and the United States over the risk of fixing carbon prices are sinking into the most controversial area: the carbon border adjustment tax planned by Brussels, which is designed to slap rates on imports from countries without equivalent carbon pricing mechanisms.

Kerry has resisted European efforts to get the US to join the scheme and has warned that it should only be used as a “last resort”. The commission’s proposal will be announced in June.

Divergent climate philosophies are likely to remain given the fundamentally different political landscapes in the US and the EU. Despite the divisions between the 27 EU member states in terms of energy policy, all have achieved their net goal of zero and the need for decarbonisation.

By contrast, U.S. environmental policy runs the risk of getting caught in the crossfire of a deeply polarized party policy, with supportive Democrats and resilient Republicans, said Dixson-Declève of the Rome Club.

Jeff Colgan, an associate professor in the climate solutions lab at Brown University, said Europe “should not expect” the US to follow the policy mix seen in the UK and the EU. “The United States has a different policy and Biden must follow the art of what is possible to achieve good climate policies.”

Additional reports from James Politi in Washington

Follow @ftclimate on Instagram